Dzana v. Matteucci

343 Or. App. 722

Opinion

722 October 1, 2025 No. 860

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

THEMBA JASPER DZANA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Delores MATTEUCCI,

Superintendent,

Oregon State Hospital, Defendant-Respondent. Lane County Circuit Court 22CV39622; A185699

Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge. Submitted August 8, 2025. Jason Weber and Equal Law Justice filed the brief for appellant.

Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed.

EGAN, J.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 722 (2025) 723

Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post-

conviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 Petitioner proceeded to a trial on stipulated facts in which he asserted a Guilty Except for Insanity (GEI) defense. When petitioner was sentenced, he was committed to the Oregon State Hospital for a period not to exceed five years. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and, after counsel was appointed, an amended petition for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argued that he was not informed of the consequences of proceeding with the GEI resolution, specifically , that he could be committed for up to five years. The post-conviction court found that the timelines in the case and the recommendations of the psychological evaluators were consistent with trial counsel’s declaration that she and petitioner did discuss the possibility of a five-year period of commitment before he proceeded with the stipulated facts trial. See Brock v. Wright, 98 Or App 323, 326, 778 P2d 999 (1989) (“In post-conviction proceedings, we are bound to uphold findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record.”). Consistent with that finding, the trial court denied petitioner’s claim for relief.

Having reviewed the record, including the post-

conviction court file and exhibits, the transcript of the hearings , and having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.